May 27, 2019

Proposed regulation could keep 3D-printed gun blueprints offline for good

Those handy schematics to enable anyone to 3D print gun parts or even a weapon from scratch will not be able to for much longer thanks to a new proposal from the State Department.

Source: Proposed regulation could keep 3D-printed gun blueprints offline for good | Fox News

Share

Obama team ramps up water regulations

The Obama administration moved Wednesday to expand anti-pollution regulations over smaller bodies of water, another executive action that drew cheers from environmentalists and jeers from Republicans.

Source: Obama team ramps up water regulations

Share

ICANN sees privatization of Internet management soon

Fadi Chehade’s comments came despite criticism in the US Congress, where some lawmakers have resisted the plan to end Washington’s key management role in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Chehade said all the necessary components for a new stewardship scheme are accounted for and there will be “major legitimizing endorsements” from several countries in coming weeks. “It is now up to the community to wrap them up, put them in a nice little box with a bow and ship them to Washington,” Chehade said, of the pieces of a plan to supplant a contract ICANN has with the US Department of Commerce. The comments come a year after the US government said it would end its technical oversight role for the Internet domain system, with the stipulation that it be managed without direct control by governments or intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations.
Source: ICANN sees privatization of Internet management soon – Yahoo News

Share

Visa, Inc. Leaders Balk at Request to Support Free and Open Internet

Leading Free Market Organization Questions Visa About Reports Credit Card Giant is Supporting Obama Plans for Increased Federal Regulation of the Internet

National Center for Public Policy Research Warns: Obama Administration Efforts to Reclassify Broadband Bad for Innovation, Consumers and Competition

Foster City, CA – “At today’s annual meeting of Visa Inc. shareholders in Foster City, California, in response to a question from the National Center for Public Policy Research, Visa CEO Charles Scharf refused to take sides in the net neutrality debate.

The question came amid media reports that Visa Inc. has urged the Federal Communications Commission to go along with President Barack Obama’s plan to reclassify broadband providers. This would give the federal government greater control over Internet pricing, service terms and much more.

“Net neutrality rules are a solution in search of a problem,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “In its simplest terms, President Obama and the FCC would transform the Internet from the largest information service mankind has ever developed into a price-regulated utility. This would hamper innovation, decrease private sector investment, increase business costs, increase consumer prices and decrease consumer choice.”

“Visa CEO Charles Scharf and another Visa executive made it very clear to me that Visa does not have a public position on the net neutrality debate. Scharf insinuated that the company wanted as many people to be able to connect to the Internet through as many devices as possible. If that’s the case, the company should publicly denounce President Obama’s net neutrality goals and support the free and open Internet philosophy that has guided U.S. Internet policy since the Clinton Administration,” said Danhof

At today’s shareholder meeting, Danhof asked Scharf, in part:

“In November, Bloomberg Businessweek reported Visa ‘has been quietly pushing the Federal Communications Commission for strict broadband rules’ and ‘urged FCC commissioners to reclassify broadband service under Title II.’ We share the same concerns about net neutrality as Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) who recently wrote that ‘[i]t would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.’

As the FCC continues to debate the issue, where does Visa currently stand regarding net neutrality and why?”

Audio of the exchange is available at: http://youtu.be/SGmswDYblYA

“After Scharf repeated that the company did not have a public position on the issue, I gave him the opportunity to repudiate the Bloomberg Businessweek report. I specifically asked if the report was incorrect,” added Danhof. “He demurred and insisted he was unaware of the report.”

“Scharf’s noncommittal response is very discouraging,” said Danhof. “Credit card companies such as Visa have benefited greatly from Internet freedoms and expansions that have grown exponentially over the past two decades. The ease of e-commerce has drastically reduced transaction costs and has been a boon for Visa. Under President Obama’s vision, innovation and start-ups will be hindered by a costly regulatory regime. It is sad to see a company that profited from a free and open Internet now supporting rules that may close the door to future competition.”

Today’s meeting come less than one month before the FCC commissioners are expected to vote on new net neutrality rules. That vote is expected to take place on February 26. While the FCC welcomes comments on its net neutrality proposal, it has yet to make the specific language of the proposal public. Some congressional conservatives have requested that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler allow the public to see the proposed rules in advance of the February 26th vote.

“Congressional conservatives calling for openness from the Obama Administration should not hold their breath,” suggested Danhof. “President Obama has run perhaps the least transparent Administration in modern times and isn’t likely to change now.”

Reports indicate the FCC’s proposal will likely be in line with President Obama’s plan to reclassify broadband service under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act. This change would upend years of agency findings and court decisions that have viewed broadband as an information service and instead regulate Internet providers as a telecommunication entities under arcane laws written during FDR’s first term as president.

According to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, any such “[r]eclassification opens the door to actual access charges – tariffed charges that Internet service providers could impose on edge providers, content delivery networks, and transit operators without their consent. Indeed, one Title II option on the table would guarantee new Internet tolls by giving broadband ISPs no option other than access charges to recover their regulated costs. Not only that, but reclassification means a broadband price hike for every consumer in America—not exactly a move that will encourage broadband adoption.”

“The future of the Internet as we know it is in the hands of five unelected officials who are sitting behind their desks at the FCC – and two of those officials have made strong public statements against further regulation of the Internet,” warned Danhof. “Those regulators who seek to fix the supposed problem with Internet access and innovations should ask themselves one question: when has government regulation been the prelude to a thriving private sector industry? Companies such as Visa should not lobby to hamper the tremendous progress that America has seen over the past 20 years when it comes to Internet speed, content and availability.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2014, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 52 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Visa meeting marks the first shareholder meeting of 2015 for the National Center.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non- partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Obama Won’t Be Satisfied Until He’s Destroyed Everything

Right after the fake Sony hack blamed on North Korea, then Russia, then someone in the United States and then the kindergarten kid playing with his mother’s I phone (not really), I told my wife this was all an orchestrated false flag to instill greater fears in Americans so that this freak of nature residing in the Whitehouse could have a good excuse to take further control over the Internet.

Getting not much more than a cursory scowl, this morning my wife made a comment about someone hacking into CENTCOM, to which I replied that this, another fake incident, is just another example of what will propel this freedom snatching criminal to begin to demand more control and restrictions over the Internet.

I really don’t know what it’s going to take before people begin to see that this ass clown, and all of them in Congress, think all of us are really stupid. Most are but not all. But I guess that no longer matters.

I hope you all love your slavery as much as I hate it and everybody who lies, cheats and steals to create it.

I’m glad I’m only a visitor on this condemned planet.

“Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama said Tuesday the cyber attacks against Sony and the Pentagon’s Central Command highlight the need for toughened laws on cybersecurity.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

U.S. Fascist Government Move to Ban Wood Burning Heat

“Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough…”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Who Should Regulate Captive Cervids?

“They make the case that not only is deer farming a legitimate agricultural endeavor, it’s also one that puts otherwise unproductive land in depressed economic areas to good use.

The executive director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission disagrees, calling for stricter regulations to contain CWD, “the Ebola of the deer community” and keep it out of North Carolina.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wolves, Lead, Hunting & Animal Worship

By Jim Beers
August 21, 2014

I recently circulated an article describing the closure of the last lead smelter in the United States by the federal government based on recent, impossible-to-comply-with Federal environmental regulations. I had received this article from a brother-in-law who, as a retired commercial airline pilot, was primarily concerned about the necessary use of lead in every gallon of aviation gasoline and the effect of increasing prices on airline transportation costs.

As an American hunter and target shooter, I was concerned about not only inevitable increased costs for all manner of ammunition; but also about seeing another element, vital to American society, becoming something America must rely on others providing us through war and peace and political stress. In addition to airplane fuel and hunting, lead is necessary for radiology accessories; batteries; and National Defense weapons, ammunition and support necessities. Thus our future use of lead (a very heavy and therefore expensive item to transport in any manner) will reflect the price of that transportation plus the costs imposed by importers; manufacturer acquisition; customer price competition for products; AND government effects like taxes, import restrictions and quality requirements.

The article and my short note introducing it mentioned that this was also a back-door opportunity for the current federal anti-gun/2nd Amendment Administration in Washington to diminish gun control by making ammunition costs prohibitive. To my surprise, I have received a number of angry e-mails telling me there was no evidence of this being any sort of gun control move. What was most stunning to me was that three of those readers are hunters and shooters. That they would not connect, the attitude of a White House that concocted and covered-up the Fast and Furious scandal while clandestinely negotiating and drafting a UN Small Arms Treaty that would undercut the 2nd Amendment with this opportune elimination of any domestic lead supply set me to thinking.

As our federal government breeds, introduces, spreads and protects wolves over more and more of The Lower 48 States; as they increase and protect deadly and dangerous grizzly bears over increasing rural areas; and as State governments protect and spread mountain lions and coyotes by both total protection and restricting methods of take: the availability of reasonably priced ammunition takes on a surprising urgency:

1. As protected predators increase in numbers and densities, human encounters with children, dog walkers, recreationists, hunters, joggers, fishermen, ranchers, rural residents and others increase and guns are often the only and best final protection during such encounters.

2. As protected predators ravage livestock, guns are often the only or the best property protection tool for animal owners.

3. As protected predators decrease big game (moose, elk, and deer), big game hunting declines.

4. As protected predators kill hunting dogs (among others from watchdogs and pets to show dogs and service dogs) small game hunting declines because of a reluctance to expose the dog to a horrible death by wolves, the growing reluctance of adults to hunt in wolf country, and the reluctance of parents to let rural children and young adults to hunt or otherwise recreate outdoors alone or unsupervised.

5. As #’s 3 and 4 above evolve, current Federal Excise Taxes on ammunition sales (called Pittman Robertson funding) will decrease. These taxes are intended by law only for State Wildlife Programs for Wildlife Restoration. These funds that are hundreds of million annually and which require matching state funds from hunting license sales revenue are the backbone of State wildlife programs and protect these programs from the diversions, corruption and thefts that were once common in state wildlife bureaucracies.

Wolves are THE most destructive (to human safety, game animals, livestock, and dogs) and widespread of the predators spreading across the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States today. Unavailable or prohibitively expensive ammunition makes personal and family protection less available to rural Americans and hunters. They are simultaneously more vulnerable to attack as livestock are ravaged, dogs are killed and game animals and hunting declines (as government attributes it to “evolving ideas about animals”, “video games”, “progressive thinking”, “”ecosystem awareness”, and fantasies about “apex predators” and “trophic cascades”, etc.)

Despite all this – government gun control; government closing the last lead smelter in the US; and the continuing spread of deadly and destructive predators by government – hunters and shooters, much less rural Americans neither mention nor oppose what government is doing. For some it is because they voted for these things or current politicians in the past; for others it is because their relatives and friends will think poorly of them; for yet others it is because they don’t want to rock the government boat that they depend on more and more; for some it is because they really accept the inevitability of a world without guns in the hands of the citizenry; or they fear a world where government is not fully empowered to “restore native ecosystems” no matter the cost to humans or human society. It is actually a toxic mix of animal worship and a movement by the most powerful among us to make citizens more and more subject to government authority and power.

Wolves, closing the last lead smelter, and hunting are like the racial riots surging in Ferguson, Missouri as I write this. “You are either on this side or that side.” “You either believe this account or that account.” “Either you support (hunting, reasonably priced ammunition and guns, wolves, law-based investigation and just resolution in court) or you oppose these things.” “Don’t try to confuse me with YOUR facts.” “That’s what you think, I know better.” Finally, “Get out of the way, we are in charge and we will protect and spread wolves; we will stop all American smelting of lead; we will make ammunition prohibitively expensive and we will confiscate all guns; and we will do whatever we must to prosecute and punish that policeman no matter what facts emerge in the investigation or in the judicial system.”

The American Constitutional Republic I once knew is devolving into a Darwinian ecosystem ruled by “The Laws of Nature” and described by Thomas Hobbes long ago as a society where life is “nasty, brutish and short.” The rule of law and the supremacy of human life and human values are being replaced by The Law of Survival of the Strongest.

Jim Beers
21 August 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Share

Supreme Court Brief Filed Seeking Clarification on Disparate Impact in Fair Housing Act

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Black Conservatives File Supreme Court Brief Asking Justices to Clarify Disparate Impact in Fair Housing Act

Case Could Set Major Precedent for Race and Regulation

Court Accepted Two Similar Cases Settled Before Consideration — It’s Time for Court to Finally Rule on the Issue

Washington, DC – With the U.S. Supreme Court finished handing down opinions for its recently-completed term, members of the Project 21 black leadership network joined a legal brief that was recently filed with the Court that asks the justices to finally resolve the vexing issue of disparate impact claims regarding the Fair Housing Act and government-subsidized housing.

“Project 21 and the other organizations joined on this brief believe it is vital to bring this crucial test of disparate impact before the Supreme Court,” said Project 21 member Hughey Newsome, an industry professional in the field of financial planning. “The notion that disparate impact claims can go beyond the intent of the authors of laws and with the only burden of proof for the accused is, in itself, disproportionate harm. And, regardless of the purpose, it sets a dangerous precedent. Once such a precedent is set, it seems there is really no limit to what can be done in the name of justice.”

Project 21’s legal brief asks the justices to accept the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. for its upcoming term. In the case, ICP claims the state agency violated the Fair Housing Act by allocating housing tax credits to developers in a manner they say effectively keeps minorities in low-income minority-majority neighborhoods rather than giving them access to housing opportunities in wealthier majority-white communities in the Dallas metropolitan area. ICP charged the department’s tax credit distribution policy creates a disparate impact on black recipients of such credits.

The case is on appeal from the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The framers of our government pledged to us a society based on a simple premise — that every American would be treated equally under the law. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments made clear that this concept applied in matters of race,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and is a former leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives. “The disparate impact doctrine runs counter to this notion and, in particular, it does so where racial lines are involved. If we’re going to permanently end the temptation by government to divide us into racial groupings, we’ve got to return to the principles embodied in our Constitution and the color-blind policy advocated by Martin Luther King.”

In the Project 21 brief, which was written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Individual Rights Foundation and Reason Foundation, it is argued that the Fair Housing Act was written “to apply solely to disparate treatment, not acts having disparate impact on protected classes.” It is argued that the U.S. Supreme Court must “consider the threshold question of whether disparate impact claims are even cognizable under the Fair Housing Act” since “disparate impact claims do not depend on the intent of the action or policy.”

In the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice accepted cases similar to the case now being advocated by Project 21. The other cases, Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. and Magner v. Gallagher, were removed from the Court’s schedule after they were settled prior to argument.

“Politically-motivated settlements in the past have kept the justices from ruling on this important question of whether or not the Fair Housing Act should be officially expanded to apply to the impact of policies and not just outright discrimination as was envisioned by the lawmakers who crafted it,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Supreme Court would be wise to take this opportunity to finally tackle this important question.”

Citing the fact that appellate court jurisdictions have already tried to resolve this issue, but have formulated different ways in which to deal with claims, the Project 21 brief points out that “[r]esolution of the question by this case would end the diversity of results that occur when different jurisdictions analyze substantially similar disparate impact claims.” Furthermore, “[s]ubjecting government defendants to disparate impact claims pressure them into engaging in unconstitutional race-conscious decisionmaking to avoid liability for such claims.”

“Lower courts try to answer this tricky question, and the result is a patchwork quilt of different remedies. Civil rights law cannot change from region to region. The Supreme Court needs to determine if such enforcement is even constitutional, and then — if it is — create a uniform way to deal with it,” said Project 21’s LeBon.

Project 21’s Cooper added: “It is one thing for the law to say that no person may be mistreated due to their race, but it is something alien and distinct to say that merely because of their race they’ll receive different treatment.”

In 2014, Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media over 800 times — including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh — on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer membership comes from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .

Share

NY Legislature Urged to Hear from BOTH Sides at e-Cigarette Hearing

Think-Tanks Join to Urge New York State Legislature to Hold Fair Hearings

National Center for Public Policy Research, Heartland Institute Urge New York Legislature to Hear Witnesses from BOTH Sides at e-Cigarette Hearing

e-Cigarettes are a Gateway Out of Tobacco Smoking for Many Adults, Groups Say

Washington DC/Chicago, IL – Today, the Health Committee of the New York Senate will hold what it is calling a “public hearing” on a number of bills relating to electronic cigarettes. Among the bills to be heard are a ban on electronic cigarette use wherever combustible cigarettes are prohibited and a ban on the sale of the liquid used in many electronic cigarette products.

While the public is welcome to watch the hearing, New York citizens and public health experts who support electronic cigarettes as alternatives to smoking are not welcome to actually speak.

“I would have liked to have traveled to Albany to give testimony, as I’ve done in Los Angeles and New York City,” said Jeff A. Stier, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Unfortunately, the hearing notice on the New York legislature’s website makes clear that oral testimony was ‘by invitation only.'”

Added Stier, “Predictably, New York Senate Health Committee Chairman Kemp Hannon only invited one side of the public health debate on e-cigarettes — those who believe nanny state laws are always the solution to health issues.”

Stier’s isn’t the only voice that New York Senators won’t get to hear at the “public hearing.”

Gregory Conley, Research Fellow at the Heartland Institute and an ex-smoker who quit with the aid of electronic cigarettes, said, “It is disheartening that the New York Senate Health Committee will not hear from a single public health advocate who believes that electronic cigarettes are and will continue to be a gateway out of smoking for millions of adults.”

It wasn’t that Stier or Conley weren’t seeking to testify: “I made multiple attempts to be added to the agenda, but was denied by Senator Hannon’s office,” Conley said.

Especially irking to the pair is the fact that lobbyists from the American Lung Association and American Heart Association were among those fortunate enough to be invited to speak. “From 2009 to 2011, the American Lung Association and American Heart Association both campaigned in the New York state legislature for a total ban on the sale of electronic cigarettes to adults. They should have no credibility on this issue,” said Conley.

The National Center for Public Policy Research and the Heartland Institute are jointly calling on the New York state legislature to hold genuine public hearings on these bills so that legislators can consider the matter based on more than just one pre-determined perspective.

Share